The untitled "Let's do something with A:M" topic

[Manuel]

Hi everybody , I was wondering if someone here or someone that you know would be able, and would like, to sell me an old version of A:M...

 

I am very short about money, and I earn just what I need to live right now. So I'm not able in this moment to buy a 300$ copy, that is what I would like, and I would be saving for. And Subscription plan is uncomfortable for me, cause I would feel like I'm renting something and, at the end, I don't have anything and the time is running... so it would be stressing for me.

 

So If someone in here would be able to sell me an old copy, One that perhaps you think you are not going to use anymore ( if could be possible in less than 70$, because I must to pay about 30$ to 50$ only in extra shipping to Venezuela), It would be so great... I would really appreciate it.

 

I hope to hear offers from you.

 

Thank you.

[Ilidrake]

I am at work currently and have 6 more days until I get home but I think I have an old copy of version 13 laying around that I'll gladly give you. If you don't mind waiting until I get home I'll ship it to you.

[Rodney]

Lloyd,

Licenses are not transferable such as Manuel is suggesting.

If you sell or even give away your CD you are violating terms of the software license.

So, after the transaction is conducted neither of you will have the legitimately licensed copy.

 

And Subscription plan is uncomfortable for me, cause I would feel like I'm renting something and, at the end, I don't have anything and the time is running... so it would be stressing for me

.

 

If you could get over this you'd be very happy customer and save yourself considerable money in the process.

[robcat2075]

I recommend the subscription and you'll be up to date with the current features.

[robcat2075]

And there is no shipping charge on the subscription because it's all downloaded.

[Manuel]

Licenses are not transferable such as Manuel is suggesting.

 

I think that it is when you are transferring the same license, But if you bought different Licenses I think you can sell one of them. I don't know if this is the case of "Ilidrake".

 

Anyone has bought something used... books, videos, etc and all of them are under a lot of copyright laws, and I don't think that is illegal, it is even allowed in Amazon a lot.

 

Well Ilidrake, if it is not illegal, as Rodney is saying, tell me when you arrive to your home to see...

[Rodney]

I think that it is when you are transferring the same license, But if you bought different Licenses I think you can sell one of them. I don't know if this is the case of "Ilidrake".

 

There is no need to guess. It's all in the license.

 

Here's one problem with selling/giving away an old A:M CD that you feel you don't want. (There are others)

Most A:M Users only purchased the initial license to A:M on the first go around.

For instance, when I purchased A:M back in '98 I paid $299 for that license.

After that I could upgrade every year for $99. This upgrade then extends the terms of the original license.

Over the next few years I upgraded (I skipped a year and have regretted that often).

So I've got a lot of A:M CDs that are still under that original license.

If I give away or sell any one of those CDs then I have (illegally) attempted to transfer the license.

Hash Inc is the only source for transferring licenses (for instance, in the case where the licensee dies Hash Inc could transfer the license to my daughter... not that she would want one).

 

Now if Lloyd purchased multiple copies of the full priced software then he would (technically) have more than one license.

But who does that? Not many people will pay $299 or $199 (the old tradeshow discount) when they only have to pay $99.

 

Interject: Note that the reason Hash Inc can sell at the $199 price point at tradeshows is because volume makes up for the loss on each sale... the sales average out. The reason Hash Inc cannot discount outside of the tradeshows is that with a one off purchase... selling one license... there is no volume to make up for the loss incurred by the discount. Hope that makes sense.

 

No my friends, one of the reasons A:M had to move to the subscription model is exactly what we are seeing here.

Users who violate their own license (knowingly or otherwise) more often than not will then carry on as if they still have full access and privileges of that license.

Worse still, the other party who thinks they have legitimately obtained said license now will demand that Hash Inc support their illegitimate license.

Are you still following me?

Good.

Now multiply that by the number of A:M CDs out there.

 

It's not a crime to want reasonably priced software.

It's great that people want to use Animation:Master.

Your motives are honorable... you think what you are doing is right. You don't see how it could possibly hurt anyone.

But please take a moment to think and realize that undermining yourself (in undermining A:M's future) is not the best way to get what you want.

If you purchase (or otherwise obtain) a copy of A:M from someone else who has not legally transferred their license you have obtained (or purchased) an illegal copy. The software license specifies the software cannot be transferred. In fact, if the original owner is done with the software they must destroy all copies.

So, in the end, the only way to purchase a legal copy of A:M is through an authorized reseller or Hash Inc.

 

I admit this is a lousy situation. Everyone should have a copy of A:M installed on their computer but for a variety of reasons some cannot. There are some really hard cases... tear jerking cases... out there. If I were rich I would buy everyone a subscription. Sadly, I am not.

 

Note that we do not have this dilemma with the subscription. There is no question as to when the terms of a license expire.

It's straightforward and simple. Easy to understand. And I really like that.

[Ilidrake]

WOW!!! Never realized that Rodney. Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry man. Looks like you may have to bite the bullet on this one. I figured I could just sell. Thanks Rodney. Seriously. AM is one of those pieces of software that I love and want to support 100% so I guess I'll be holding on to the old disk.

[pixelplucker]

I think people that gripe at the subscription usually want to have the flexibility to run on at least 2 systems, their desktop and if not on that machine maybe a personal laptop. Does AM offer additional computer license or allow the install of the subscription on 2 computers rather than one?

$79 a year is pretty inexpensive but if you double that so someone can run on 2 computers then it's not so cheap.

 

I still have my cd version, though old I still have the option of putting it on my laptop if I don't want to sit at my desk.

[Kamikaze]

I like the idea of the license to cover 2 computer even at a little higher price ..... sense version 17b and beyond I have had all sorts of problems with simcloth and it's surely my laptop setup/GPU problem ...if I had 2 allowed on one license It could help me trouble shoot and or at least be able to use one license, as is now .... I may not update and go back to V14 ..... unless I can find another cheapo laptop ( I dont like the confinement of a desktop) with diff specs before my license runs out ...

 

Mike

[itsjustme]

$79 a year is pretty inexpensive but if you double that so someone can run on 2 computers then it's not so cheap.

 

Check the prices of other software...two A:M licenses are still much cheaper than most single licenses of other software.

[Kamikaze]

$79 a year is pretty inexpensive but if you double that so someone can run on 2 computers then it's not so cheap.

 

Check the prices of other software...two A:M licenses are still much cheaper than most single licenses of other software.

 

Soo True ..........I'd still like to see 1 license 2 computers as an option, lets say $129.00

[Rodney]

'Cheap' is a bit too subjective a measurement. For many any amount of money will be too much.

 

Here's one way to reign in the cost of multiple licenses on multiple computers:

In January purchase a subscription for one computer.

In July purchase another for the other computer.

The cost then will average out over the year and while the final cost will be effectively the same the affect of that cost will be diminished considerably.

 

I haven't looked deeply into it but hope that someday the community's 'virtual studio' can explore these obstacles to multi-license users more thoroughly.

Cost is not trivial to an animated production and it's important to keep those within controls.

 

I suppose a lot depends on what you are using A:M for on that other computer.

If it is primarily a rendering machine then there isn't much need to purchase another license. I would think it better to purchase an extra Netrender Node or two.

 

I understand what you are saying here. If I move back and forth from my desktop to my laptop I want to be able to use A:M on both.

I feel you here (and this is a little outside the scope of Manuel's topic) it's definitely an area to look at more closely.

Hopefully Manuel will excuse us here as we go a little off topic.

 

One of the reasons Martin dropped the price of the yearly subscription from $99 to $79 is to address exactly this issue.

Before we would have been paying $198 for a two computer solution ($99x2). Now we would pay $158 ($79x2) which represents a $40 savings for licensing two machines at the subscription price.

Since we no longer have to pay for shipping and handling this also contributes a significant amount of savings over all (I'd say on average this represents at least $15 every year that must ultimately be written off as as necessary loss for both the user... every user... and for Hash Inc). The websubscription resolves this.

 

The real question here is the value of Animation:Master.

Some do not think it worth the current asking price. Others find it very reasonable.

Somewhere in the middle is a solution.

As a customer who personally hates to pay anything for my software (I love free software too) I would always challenge Hash Inc never to undervalue A:M.

To do so would be highly detrimental which in the end would negatively effect us all.

I've heard this from other A:M users and have resisted their logic but if anything Hash Inc should be charging more... if for no other reason than to support development.

 

My own personal approach to this issue of perceived value is to go to a personalized approach.

What solves my problem may not be optimal for you.

But in order to solve any problem we need to know as many of the variables as possible.

 

In Manuels case there is no question in my mind but that the subscription is the solution but the only one that can resolve that is Manuel himself.

I resisted the CD-less solution for time but after taking the plunge found that I should have made that transition immediately.

The websubscription resolved so many problems that I had to stop counting. And every time I turn around I seem to find one more problem it resolves for us and for Hash Inc.

 

As for the idea of 'renting' software, that is a truly unfortunate misnomer.

All software is rented/licensed and unless we are the actual owner/proprietor/programmer, we can never own it.

Give the subscription a try... stagger licenses to minimize daily operational costs... animate long and prosper.

 

Another important note: We often complain that we cannot use the current license on multiple machines but this overlooks the fact that when we did this with the old CD in the past we were violating the terms of license which stated the software could only be installed on one machine. As users we are an inventive lot and if there is a loophole we will explore every flaw we can exploit, we won't hesitate for a moment to take full advantage of these 'features'. That is natural enough but where we go off track is where we think our past misuse is somehow a lost privilege of today. This fact will be lost on many... it has been lost on many... and I accept that. It's not common to view these things from outside our own perspective. We want A:M for as cheap as we can get it. That's alright. Who in their right mind would pay a dime more than they have to pay? (I was rather partial to the $49 subscription price that we coulda/shoulda still be paying and... BTW... I still owe some folks a pop in the nose on behalf of the community for ruining that!!! Figuratively folks... violence doesn't solve anything or bring lower prices back) For those that desire to use A:M both now and long into the future we do need to take time to consider the price we pay. As long as the price remains reasonable, and $79 per license per year seems more than reasonable to me, I'll keep saving my pennies and paying it.

 

As always, for volume discounts, custom orders and special deals contact Hash Inc.

[Rodney]

Soo True ..........I'd still like to see 1 license 2 computers as an option, lets say $129.00

 

Contact Hash Inc (Jason @ hash dot com). Where it comes to volume sales they may be able to discount.

Here in the forum there is nothing we can do about that.

Going direct with Hash Inc is not only proper, it also prevents me from getting my feelings hurt when I discover you've been given a discount that I been left out on.

There is nothing that'll twist my cord quicker than to find out I've paid more for a product than someone else.

Trust me, it's better if I don't find out.

[pixelplucker]

When I mentioned allowing users to install on an extra system it was because it is common on many software packages to do this. Not everyone cares but does seemsince the demise of the cd distribution that maybe it might be a nice alternative package to offer to those that would pay extra for the flexibility.

 

Of course Im still a fan of dongles, though would probably cost more thanthe old cd version toimplement.

[Rodney]

When I mentioned allowing users to install on an extra system it was because it is common on many software packages to do this. Not everyone cares but does seemsince the demise of the cd distribution that maybe it might be a nice alternative package to offer to those that would pay extra for the flexibility.

 

Of course Im still a fan of dongles, though would probably cost more thanthe old cd version toimplement.

 

Understood.

It would be nice to have that option.

Drop Jason a note via email to let him know.

You might also let him know your ideal price points (that is... for the products you desire but they don't currently offer).

They might not be able to match that but at least they will know as they move forward.

 

it is common on many software packages to do this

 

Unfortunately, not at Hash Inc's price point. I'd guess that most other packages are at least x3 to x5 the price for this option.

I'd say A:M's price has already been cut to the bone.

 

We could guess at what a similar price would be but if factored out we would likely discover we'd being paying more than we are currently.

Here's an example:

 

Let's say that the regular price of a subscription went back to $99 to offset the overhead cost of a new option allowing for a $129 multi-computer license. (Note: I say multi-computer but the fact is that it would be the same as getting two licenses). These two licenses would simply expire at the one year point after activation... and yes, the smartest amongst them would stagger the activation of those two licenses in order to extend said license. How many folks at the low end would feel that extra $20 was too much? If even one person thought that would the price be too much? Would the folks that paid $99 think that they were missing out on something that the $129 subscribers got?

[Fuchur]

The problem I see is, that people would start to buy together and spare the licences which were meant to be used by one user.

A:M's licencing system has no possibility to check that in any way. that would be a problem IF these two users would otherwise buy 2 licences at 79.99 Dollars (which would be legal).

 

If of course you could bring another user to A:M with this, it could still be a good option and would very likely be worth it.

 

Anyway: To limit this spare "one" licence factor you would need to make the savings small enough while giving a single user a discount high enough to buy this option.

I'd say 79.99 to 139.99 would be better to do that. This would mean, that it would be more unlikely for two users to spare (not being legal with that option) because the savings are just too small.

But for a single user it would still be tempting, since the saving is there for him/her.

 

Just my 2c on it.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Kamikaze]

I never thought about the two "separate" users on a two machine license ..shows why Im not in the software business ! or wouldn't be for long...lol

[pixelplucker]

If someone did buy a 2 seat license, both copies would be tied to an individual computer. If support was needed it would be the one user since it both copies would have the same user name.

 

I have no idea what is fair, Hash has to determine their costs for the software and what the market will bare. I would assume that would a job in itself since they are competing with programs that run from free to the $8k mark (little bit of a spread there).

 

Getting back to the actual license, are they licensing the software to a computer for a year or the user for a year? Someone had mentioned a usb stick burned as a dongle. Not sure how secure that would be but a portable license might satisfy the people that were former cd users.

Maybe a web page the user could log into and create their dongle.

 

For now I'm using the subscription version and been too lazy to even install the cd version on my laptop. Just keep seeing this topic pop up over and over.

[Rodney]

If someone did buy a 2 seat license, both copies would be tied to an individual computer.

 

I was following along pretty well until you said that.

I don't see the benefit of having two licenses tied to one computer.

That doesn't make much sense to me.

I figure you mean to distro the license via network but... considering that is way out of my range here.

Outfitting entire studios that run on distributed networks is definitely where you'd want to contact Hash Inc.

I would think Hash's setups for schools might fill that bill as that is designed to be ran over networks.

 

Someone had mentioned a usb stick burned as a dongle.

 

I mentioned a USB stick but it in no way would be a dongle. It would just contain the installer (optionally the code for a one year activation) and tons of A:M assets. The same would be true for a portable harddrive. The installation would still be tied to an individual computer.

[Fuchur]

If someone did buy a 2 seat license, both copies would be tied to an individual computer. If support was needed it would be the one user since it both copies would have the same user name.

 

I have no idea what is fair, Hash has to determine their costs for the software and what the market will bare. I would assume that would a job in itself since they are competing with programs that run from free to the $8k mark (little bit of a spread there).

 

Getting back to the actual license, are they licensing the software to a computer for a year or the user for a year? Someone had mentioned a usb stick burned as a dongle. Not sure how secure that would be but a portable license might satisfy the people that were former cd users.

Maybe a web page the user could log into and create their dongle.

 

For now I'm using the subscription version and been too lazy to even install the cd version on my laptop. Just keep seeing this topic pop up over and over.

 

A:Ms licencing system is using one computer with an individual host-id to secure it is used by one computer. There is no "user" itself for the system but only a host.

Anything else would need to be controlled all the time with an internet-connection (which other user dont want, since they are not constantly connected to the internet).

(and of course the software would need to be able to do that).

 

The only way to make sure that only one user is using it is if A:M would tell the server on start that it is used with licence xyz and then the same licenes could not be used again until A:M sends another info to the server telling it that A:M has shut down. Problems may occure if A:M crashes or the user's PC crashes or network-failure happens on server side, so the close command can not be sent. Then the state at the server would still say "Licence is used" and the user could not restart A:M.

This is however solveable by checking host-ids too, so if the same host-id is trying to reaccess the licence, it could be done... anyway: It is not an too small amount of work to be done and it would not be totally secure... I'll think about it and see, if I can implement something to let it work this way, but that will take some time and it will take a huge amount of testing till it goes live especially since Steffen would have to implement something to A:M, Hash would have to be okay with it and so on...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Ilidrake]

A myself hate software that I need an internet connection to use. The new Simcity uses this scheme and Ubi Soft so I haven't bought one of their products since. I mean right now what would be the point? I don't see any AM software hacks running amok on the internet? May actually drive a lot of potential customers away...just my two cents.

[Ilidrake]

A myself hate software that I need an internet connection to use. The new Simcity uses this scheme and Ubi Soft so I haven't bought one of their products since. I mean right now what would be the point? I don't see any AM software hacks running amok on the internet? May actually drive a lot of potential customers away...just my two cents.

[Fuchur]

A myself hate software that I need an internet connection to use. The new Simcity uses this scheme and Ubi Soft so I haven't bought one of their products since. I mean right now what would be the point? I don't see any AM software hacks running amok on the internet? May actually drive a lot of potential customers away...just my two cents.

 

There are from earlier version but that is not the point. It would be the only way to make sure that only one user is using once licence at a given time... if at all it would be only an additional option, but as I said: It would take much time and work and I dont see a bigger usage in it myself. I personally have no problem with a permament internet-connection (I am always connected anyway and if I want to play a game (most of the games today use something like that, like Steam, Origina, EA Starter, etc.). I never got what the big point about it was IF it works as it should... I have quite good experiences with Steam on my computer...

 

Anyway: this is only a play with thoughts of mine here... no concrete plans in any direction AND it would only be an additional option you would have to select separately when buying A:M.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Vertexspline]

It is a good conversation here and important to go over the ins and outs.

 

It seems to me that a lot of folks might like to have two comps using am . The flexibility and ability to keep modeling and rendering makes it very effective way to go. Seems to me Hash could just kind of offer a a subscription options like 1 for 79 2 for 140 3 for 180 maybe? just saying ---you would not have to alter anything then just discount the more you buy the less you pay per unit ---and maybe the extra volume sales will more than cancel the discounts lost.

[pixelplucker]

So it boils down to a multi seat subscriptions, people would want to see a discount of some sorts but the downside is there may be the chance of illicit use of the multi seat license where users let friends use the additional seat.

If so does that actually increase the user base and chance for future customers? or Does it decrease the revenue that AM would get?

 

I'm thinking even if there was some abuse, majority of people inquiring for multi seats are doing it for legitimate reasons. After all people that use AM generally are nice people aren't they? Does anyone dispute that?

[Darkwing]

If so does that actually increase the user base and chance for future customers? or Does it decrease the revenue that AM would get?

 

This is the tech question of the age pretty much. This is the question all the big companies want to answer. This is why there's a range from open source to ridiculously expensive.

[ruscular]

I would love to see a 2 year subscription deal, because even after they release it, the software doesn't fully mature until all the bug is found and address. So just when the software become solid, its time for a new subscription. I have often wish I could just renew my present version because of the maturity of working solidly. I would consider buying every year a 2 year subscription. And not ever having to deal with something broken and solid backup program. I think they should consider adding a 2 year option!

[Kamikaze]

You can keep on running the version you are working on even after renewing, you can install the new version in a different folder and transfer/copy the lic to that folder , so you can test out new versions....this is what I do. even run diff versions at the same time..it's what I do.......

[NancyGormezano]

I have often wish I could just renew my present version because of the maturity of working solidly. I would consider buying every year a 2 year subscription.

 

You can renew every year (no need for 2 year sub) & you can still use your favorite version. That's what I do.

 

Just copy the master license file (master0.lic) to each different directory where you installed each version. For example I still use vers 15j+, 16b and 17g all under 1 yearly $79 license fee.

[largento]

Bottom line is that $80 a year for software that lets you make your own 3D movies from start to finish is an incredible deal. I'm unemployed and I still manage to come up with it every year (gladly.)

 

A:M is constantly growing and being improved, so the subscription price makes the most amount of sense. It's foolish to lock yourself into a version that isn't supported after 1 year and you can't get updates for.

 

Do this simple math:

 

$80 a year gets you over three years for less than the price of the CD. Are you really going to use the CD for four years? Especially, if your computer's OS has been updated an no longer works with that version?

 

And what are we talking about? 22¢ a day?

[jakerupert]

Sure A:M offers a very good value for its price!

 

But what I don't like is to be forced into that subscriptonmodel and the lack of generosity and kind of

"Small thinking" from hash in that respect.

 

I own two other comercial apps that grant me to use 3 seats under one licence and leave me the choice of

Msa or buying the licence once or for all.

 

Also that licenseterms, that forbid you to transfer your license and cd are hardly legal at least in europe.

At least this pagelong very complicated legaltalk is more bound to drive one aspiring user from Venezuela

away (and give a bad impression to others) who would buy the license probably anyway later, when starting to make real use of A:M .

 

I think in simplyfing things and being more generous also the company would benefit.

[Rodney]

I would love to see a 2 year subscription deal, because even after they release it, the software doesn't fully mature until all the bug is found and address.

 

There are several problems with 2 year subscriptions. Mark outlines a few.

It should be noted that we can currently get a 2 year subscription for $158 (just don't lose that second year activation code).

Launch an email to Jason and he might be able to get you a great deal on a twofer (tell him Rodney suggests $149.99... those 99 pennies could go toward development).

 

As for using the older version you really like and really want to keep using forever and ever.

That's one of the fringe benefits to subscribing to A:M... all those earlier subscription versions are accessible too.

I haven't heard of any other company this generous or forward thinking with their software.

Everyone else is waking up though.

 

Jost,

I like you too much to respond in detail to your post.

I would love to see your issues resolved.

[Roger]

I have 3 systems I would like to use AM on. My main laptop, my tower (would use mainly for rendering) and my junker laptop (which gets carried around more often because I don't need to worry about it breaking as much). $240 a year really isn't that bad, I currently only have the one license.

 

When was there going to be a $49 price, and how did that get hosed? If explaining that is going to cause a problem feel free to PM me.

Too bad, that would have been useful.

 

But as Largento pointed out, less than a quarter a day to use AM is a pretty good deal. Unless you are really destitute you could probably come up with the money.

 

I remember spending $500 (student version) on 3ds v3 waaayyyy back in the 90s. I never upgraded to Max because I think the upgrade was going to be something like $2000.

 

I hate to sound like an old man, but imagine having to pay the price of a used car to update AM. Heck, Alias used to be like $25000 or something with all the modules. And the computer to run it was another $10,000 or $25000.

 

I'm going to adjust the onion on my belt and go chase some kids off my lawn now.

[Rodney]

When was there going to be a $49 price, and how did that get hosed? If explaining that is going to cause a problem feel free to PM me.

Too bad, that would have been useful.

 

It should be noted there actually was a period of $49 subscription.

It wasn't just going to happen. It happened and for one year some of us paid $49 for A:M.

 

The following is my take on the $49 subscription and how we as a community lacked the ability/support base to see it through.

Keep in mind that both minor and major market factors play significant roles in pricing products so I'm not attempting to play the blame game on anyone.

My take won't be 100% accurate because it involves speculation and mind reading that may or may not in and of itself be sufficiently accurate.

 

When Martin made the decision to move from the CD lock to online activation for software security it was primarily due to the company that produced the CD lock software going out of business. There are a lot of reasons the company was going out of business... one was that the CD lock was too easy to bypass... another was that CD distribution of software was up against a pending new wave of internet distribution. At any rate, many factors led to the eventual choice of the online activation model the effect of which was to help sustain A:M for the forseeable future despite negative trends in software. On the plus side this yielded some savings for Hash Inc they could pass along to their customers. For instance, the price of packaging and mailing out A:M (manual labor that requires a paid staff) adds considerable cost to packaging and distribution over and above the price of the software. In fact, shipping to some overseas locations might cost in postage alone almost as much as the software itself, whereas the downloadable distribution of software via the internet only costs pennies on the dollar.

 

In anticipation of the success of this new process and with the understanding that some customers would be sacrificing some convenience in the new scheme of things Martin introduced the new price for the annual subscription; the $99 CD was originally predicate on users purchasing an annual upgrade (i.e. subscription) but some tended to wait a few years between upgrades because each release of A:M was that good). Martin therefore dropped the price of the annual upgrade from $99 to $49 passing on a 50% discount to every subscriber to help to offset the issue that users might perceive they had lost something in the move.

 

What I don't think Martin fully counted on was resistance from several key personalities that imagined malice in the move to online activation (Hey, what are you trying to do... monitor us???/I don't rent my software/What happens when (not if!) Hash Inc goes out of business?/etc./etc.); and thus these vocal pundits soundly rejected the offer. A few did this noisily enough to convince other poor souls to resist the change too. Then most went off to spend about 10x as much (factored annually) on other (in my personal estimation, inferior) products.

 

But heck, I'm not pointing fingers here. I resisted the move for a time also... and because any change can be painful... and because I enjoyed collecting those silver platters with the cool characters printed on them. But it wasn't long before I was won over. The $49 price tag alone was proof enough of Martin's good will toward us. For starters, I was saving $50 a year by moving over to the new online websubscription and that was money I put immediately into my pocket and I could spend that $50 elsewhere, even on competing software if I wanted.

 

But the resistance to change already had its ill effect on the community as a whole and the volume of sales were too low to make up for the substantial discount in price. Here is where at personal expense to himself, Martin yet again showed his good will again to the community.

Rather than raise the price back to $99... which at that time is exactly what I encouraged him to do... he settled on $79. Close enough to cover expenses... minus staff... minus developers... and as usually factored because the going is always rough, minus himself.

 

Again, if I would have had my way... we would still be paying $99 annually.

Proof positive that Martin is a lot more generous than I would be.

 

So, will A:M ever be $49 a year again?

Even if A:M was $29 a year, for some the cost would still be too much.

"Oh, but I'd be willing to pay $1000 for A:M if you'd only implement this idea!"

And I'll say, yeah, right. Put your money where your mouth is.

Our community *as a whole* hasn't historically been willing to pay $399...$199...$99...$79...$49... anything, for the best computer animation software on the market.

 

More info than you wanted to know... but that's my general understanding.

[zandoriastudios]

I think that it is when you are transferring the same license, But if you bought different Licenses I think you can sell one of them. I don't know if this is the case of "Ilidrake".

 

There is no need to guess. It's all in the license.

 

Here's one problem with selling/giving away an old A:M CD that you feel you don't want. (There are others)

Most A:M Users only purchased the initial license to A:M on the first go around.

For instance, when I purchased A:M back in '98 I paid $299 for that license.

After that I could upgrade every year for $99. This upgrade then extends the terms of the original license.

Over the next few years I upgraded (I skipped a year and have regretted that often).

So I've got a lot of A:M CDs that are still under that original license.

If I give away or sell any one of those CDs then I have (illegally) attempted to transfer the license.....

 

 

Actually, when hash moved to the subscription model we no longer can "update" that old version that is tied to the CD. I gave my old version to my nieces (since they are interested in animation). There is nothing illegal in selling an old version of the software and it's license

[jakerupert]

Hi Rodney,

 

How about a model like lets say:

 

- a basic version with a one seat licence a year for 79,-$

- an advanced Version with a three-seat licence (home, office, laptop) a year for lets say 99,- or up to 149,-$

- and the permanent Version for as it is 399,-$ or 299,- if I am right

 

all directly advertised in the store?

 

The advanced Version could close the gap for the users coming from the CD,

that were acustomed to the workflow using the computer on multiple computers.

(Yes, I know it was illegal, but it still was common practice amongst all of us I guess)

I even bought a second license once, frankly don`t know, what happend with that, if I would

have had to update it in the meantime and such.

Thats why I dont want to subscribe to more then one licence. It gets to complicated for me.

 

So a solution like an advanced licence at an attractive price, would sure help users like me.

Don`t know if technical hurdles are speaking against it, but maybe it could be a solution

to make everybody happy?

[Fuchur]

Hi Rodney,

 

How about a model like lets say:

 

- a basic version with a one seat licence a year for 79,-$

- an advanced Version with a three-seat licence (home, office, laptop) a year for lets say 99,- or up to 149,-$

- and the permanent Version for as it is 399,-$ or 299,- if I am right

 

all directly advertised in the store?

 

The advanced Version could close the gap for the users coming from the CD,

that were acustomed to the workflow using the computer on multiple computers.

(Yes, I know it was illegal, but it still was common practice amongst all of us I guess)

I even bought a second license once, frankly don`t know, what happend with that, if I would

have had to update it in the meantime and such.

Thats why I dont want to subscribe to more then one licence. It gets to complicated for me.

 

So a solution like an advanced licence at an attractive price, would sure help users like me.

Don`t know if technical hurdles are speaking against it, but maybe it could be a solution

to make everybody happy?

 

What you are suggesting there does not sound too bad for me.

I think that the "Advanced" version would need to be 3 licences internally anyway (just because it is the way the licences are handled by the lic-system) but that should not be to hard to work with. And since there is no "updating" but you just buy another licence when the currrent one runs out, it should not be too confusing to stay current with that...

 

149.99 Dollars sounds like a price Hash should be able to live with (since there was a 5 seat licences a while back which was quite inexpensive too) and since these licences are sold to one person (and licenced to one) it would just mean that Hash could gain the money for one licence more (since the user very likely would not buy 3 licences on his own) while the user gets 3 licences. The worth thing that could happen would be, that A:M would get spread a little wider, since the user may spare one licence with another person... and since it is very likely that it would be a friend giving it to another who did not use it before (since big studios who use A:M are rare) this could be a good deal for both sides.

 

I'll ask Jason about that to see what he thinks about it.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Rodney]

There is nothing illegal in selling an old version of the software and it's license

 

What perhaps is most disappointing is when intelligent people state things like this.

Here we see the basic problem compounded by those who should know better but do not understand the basic legalities.

 

I know at this point we should trot out the license and see for ourselves in black and white the error of Will's thinking... but really... this line of discussion is a zero sum game. I find my sympathy going out to Martin again because this is the realm where even if he was correct in a discussion like this he was seen to be wrong or overbearing and the perception alone that he was being unfair translated to ill feelings. In the end he really only had one choice... suggest the customer might be happier someplace else.

 

One of the many reasons why the subscription model is preferred to the old CD is it does away with our ability to illegally sell older versions of the CD.

 

Now note what Will trots out here as his rationale for justifying the illegal activity:

 

I gave my old version to my nieces (since they are interested in animation)

 

While seemingly altruistic on its face, at its core it deprived Hash Inc of an investment of $199 which was sorely needed.

Here we had someone who would otherwise have paid $199 for the first purchase and then subsequently $99 for each upgrade.

 

Now, the argument is sure to be... "Well, my friend, family member, coworker, etc. wasn't going to use A:M anyway."

"I was just sharing my love of A:M with someone who might purchase A:M someday."

"It might equate to a purchase someday".

These are equivalent to the justification for piracy which states that piracy actually increases sales because eventually the pirate will want to seen as legitimate (read: legal).

 

What this particular line of thinking fails to acknowledge is that the person the CD was passed on to now has an expectation (no... a God given right!) to the $99 upgrade when in fact they never had such a thing. Even if paying $99 this represents a $100 deficit that still had to be paid. Note that this was paid for by Hash Inc by the loss of development... the loss of programmers... the loss of new features... the loss of staff... the loss of support... all because of rationalized illegitimacy of users who do not want to pay the price for a product or upgrade.

 

I could go on but really... haven't we been here before?

When I see misinformation trotted out like this and stated as gospel fact, it makes me all the more glad we have the current online activation.

But again, I'm not pointing fingers, we did this to ourselves.

 

The worst thing that could happen would be, that A:M would get spread a little wider, since the user may spare one licence with another person...

 

And so continues the less-than-zero sum game.

 

149.99 Dollars sounds like a price Hash should be able to live with (since there was a 5 seat licences a while back which was quite inexpensive too)

 

Someone will have to refresh our memory here but I believe that set of 5 CDs was $599?

This was roughly equivalent to the old network license (primarily for schools) which was approx $599 (or $699?) with each extra seat $50.

My apologies as the dollar amounts are sure to be off here.

[KJ'd Beast]

Instead of putting the burden on Hash, here are a few alternate ideas.

 

1. Ask your boss to buy it for you and show them how it could benefit the company, assuming it can or you're creative enough to show them how it can.

 

2. Ask your boss for a raise of $299 per year or .82¢ mas o menos /dia.

 

3. Ask your boss for a raise of $79 per year or .22¢ mas o menos /dia.

 

4. Take a loan out from a local bank for either of those amounts for a 12 month term.

 

5. Ask your family for a "wink, wink" loan.

 

6. Get a second job.

 

7. Think of another way to get the money as long as it doesn't involve criminal behavior.

 

hth

[Rodney]

Keith, I like the way you think.

 

My old suggestion is to refrain from drinking about 100 cans of Coke or Pepsi each year.

Depending on what your poision is... that might equate to only 25 cans.

 

I know I'd be more healthy if I took my own advice here.

 

 

In other news...

I see that we can get a 10 user license to A:M via Safe Harbor for $639.99

[Vertexspline]

I think these discussions are good as it reminds folks about how things really are. Lets face it. A lot of times it just comes down to supporting the guys who are providing with something you think enough to buy.

 

Hash Inc sells a very compelling product at a more than fair yearly subscription plan price. Its pretty hard to try and chissle down a company who is being this good to its users. So just buy the subcription if you want or the unending one and feel good that you are supporting the cause. Cause if you don't there might not be a cause to support.

[zandoriastudios]

What perhaps is most disappointing is when intelligent people state things like this.

Here we see the basic problem compounded by those who should know better but do not understand the basic legalities.

 

I know at this point we should trot out the license and see for ourselves in black and white the error of Will's thinking...

 

Rodney,

You are the one who is mistaken about the law:

http://www.out-law.com/page-10421

 

 

US court says software is owned, not licensed

Software company Autodesk has failed in its bid to prevent the second-hand sale of its software. In a long-running legal battle it has not been able to convince a court that its software is merely licensed and not sold.05 Oct 2009

Topics E-commerce and the internet General contract and boilerplate Corporate TMT & Sourcing Software

Like many software publishers Autodesk claims that it sells only licences to use its software and that those who pay for it do not necessarily have the right to sell it on. It sued Timothy Vernor, who was selling legitimate copies of Autodesk software on eBay, for copyright infringement.

The US District Court for the Western District of Washington has backed Vernor, though, in his claim that he owned the software and had the right to sell it on.

The Court said that there were two cases to use as a precedent and that they clashed fundamentally. It had no choice, it said, but to follow the earlier precedent, which was a dispute over the ownership of prints of Hollywood films sold to film stars.

While many of the film copies were explicitly only licensed, the court had previously found that in one case, involving Vanessa Redgrave, the agreement had transferred ownership of the print to the actress. This is called the Wise case.

One major consideration in that was the fact that the studio did not have the right, as it did in other agreements, to demand the return of the print.

The Court said that though the issue was complicated, software agreements were similar enough to those film agreements to act as a precedent.

"The Autodesk License is a hodgepodge of terms that, standing alone, support both a transfer of ownership and a mere license," said the ruling. "Autodesk expressly retains title to the 'Software and accompanying materials,' but it has no right to regain possession of the software or the 'accompanying materials'. Licensees pay a single up-front price for the software. Autodesk can require the destruction of the software, but only as consideration in the later purchase of an upgrade."

"The court concludes that Wise leads to the conclusion that the transfer of AutoCAD copies via the License is a transfer of ownership," it said.

The Court said that it had to follow that case's precedent because it was older than another conflicting ruling, and that it could not choose a precedent based on the most desirable policy.

"The court’s decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not," the Court ruled. "Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it."

The Court did say, though, that Autodesk's claims that Vernor's actions were likely to result in the creation and sale of illegal copies of its AutoCAD software were not well founded.

"Autodesk’s claim that Mr. Vernor promotes piracy is unconvincing," the ruling said. "Mr. Vernor’s sales of AutoCAD packages promote piracy no more so than Autodesk’s sales of the same packages. Piracy depends on the number of people willing to engage in piracy, and a pirate is presumably just as happy to unlawfully duplicate software purchased directly from Autodesk as he is to copy software purchased from a reseller like Mr. Vernor."

Vernor had tried to argue that Autodesk's behaviour in suing him amounted to a misuse of its copyrights. The Court rejected that claim.

 

My current license is a subscription. It has nothing to do with my old license-- which I am free to give away or sell. And since there is no way to upgrade it, I don't see how you think that giving it to my nieces deprives Hash of $99 upgrades(!?) they are 9 years old and also unable to come up with $79 subscription....but if they develop an interest, they might in the future.

[Rodney]

Will,

Did you actually read that article?

 

The Court said that there were two cases to use as a precedent and that they clashed fundamentally. It had no choice, it said, but to follow the earlier precedent,

 

So, a court felt compelled to follow a precedence to make a decision that they otherwise would not have made?

You are on shifting sands here Will... trying to justify both legal and illegal activity under the umbrella of legality... which sets you in danger of losing your entire foundation. You might as well argue you can do anything.

 

So your primary argument is that if Hash Inc's license isn't upheld by a court ruling you don't have to adhere to that license?

Or perhaps it's the reverse? That until a court specifically rules in favor of the license you can do anything with it you please?

Very interesting. You've enlightened me into seeing the depth of the real problem here.

 

You are correct in that the courts do decide the legality of a claim when a judgement must be made in their jurisdiction (but courts often reverse themselves or are overuled themselves so what does that say about the judgments these courts make?)

 

More importantly than any ruling you'll get from a court is the ruling that license granted by Hash Inc gave you in the first place.

You may discount the terms agreed to but you've set yourself apart from their judgement in this case.

 

Regarding your gift: If you purchased a current license and gave that activation code to someone else then you aren't violating any license... this is equivalent to purchasing a copy of the license for someone else. You certainly shouldn't be able to activate the same code on your computer if they've activated it on theirs.

 

*Note that I'm not arguing what I might do with my old CDs here. What I might do with them has no bearing on the case. I'm certainly not claiming I would act any differently. What I am arguing is that I'm not about to claim illegal activity or breaking of the terms of Hash Inc's license on my part is somehow legal. For what it's worth, I don't think you should either.

 

I was going to end with that but this needs to be addressed as well:

 

It has nothing to do with my old license-- which I am free to give away or sell.

 

The old license stated the same thing as the current one does about what you could legally do with the software once no longer needed. I'll give you a hint: It wasn't "give away or sell". And folks wonder why Hash Inc had to move to software expirations and online activations...

[robcat2075]

I'd have to go with Will's reading of that decision. You can sell your old software if indeed you really do transfer it and do not somehow keep a working copy for yourself. Our case of the CD key seems very much like the film print case the court cites.

 

None-the-less, I'd recommend that Manuel or anyone else looking in go with the new subscription because the old A:M software that could be sold is pretty old now.

[Rodney]

You can sell your old software if indeed you really do transfer it and do not somehow keep a working copy for yourself.

 

Now at least we are getting somewhere.

And how does one transfer a Hash Inc license if not through Hash Inc. who granted the license in the first place?

Perhaps there is some fine print in the license that I forgot to read.

No, the terms of the license are quite explicit. When the software is no longer needed it is to be destroyed by the licensee.

 

Funny story: Once upon a time I was set to go about purchasing old copies of A:M off of Ebay. (to take them off the market)

I purchased a few copies before realizing that was going to put me in the poor house very quickly.

The reason for purchase was to transfer those to some talented folks who I knew used pirated copies of A:M.

It was a mostly failed attempt to move them toward legitimacy.

 

I'd recommend that Manuel or anyone else looking in go with the new subscription because the old A:M software that could be sold is pretty old now.

The websubscription solves so many problems I've had to stop counting them.

[Rodney]

The court of appeals (appelate court) apparently reversed that 2009 decision in 2010:

 

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk

 

From the bottom of that page:

 

Appellate Court Proceedings

The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that a software user is a licensee rather than the owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable restrictions. Applying these factors it was clear to the court that Autodesk’s transfers to the original purchasers were mere licenses and that Vernor’s subsequent purchases were improper. Therefore, Vernor was unable to raise his affirmative defenses and was not privileged to sell his copies.

 

Proof positive that occasionally judges do adjudicate a case correctly.

 

Need more precedence?

A year later Vernors subsequent appeal of that decision was denied by the Supreme Court:

 

132 S.Ct. 105 (2011)

Timothy S. VERNOR, petitioner,

v.

AUTODESK, INC.

 

No. 10-1421.

Supreme Court of the United States.

 

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

 

Feel free to reinterpret the previous claims as you see fit.

I won't be holding my breath while waiting for common sense to prevail.

[jakerupert]

This is exactly what I meant.

A pagelong legaldiscussion is not, what we need.

Are we lawyers or artists?

 

So as a company its better to keep things simple and reasonable and listen to your

Customers needs and suggestions. That will surly sell more copies and bind

More users to hash in the long run.

 

How some people think, being harsh and unfriendly to their customers will help

The company, escapes me.

A bit like in the old times, when Mr. Sappington and Martin were still around.

[Rodney]

Are we lawyers or artists?

 

I haven't been the one questioning the legalities of Hash Inc's license. (In Europe or anywhere else)

I have only been trying to correct misinformation.

 

Jost,

You have a personal view where someone at Hash Inc is somehow being harsh and unfair.

How can I prove to you that this view is misguided and incorrect?

The best way I know is to tell you the truth.

Then you can decide for yourself.

 

What I hope to remind everyone of is just how generous Hash Inc has been when the vocal minority tends to say exactly the opposite.

Both views are not correct here.

 

Perhaps one of these days we need to discuss the difference between "needs and suggestions" and "demands".

[zandoriastudios]

Regarding your gift: If you purchased a current license and gave that activation code to someone else then you aren't violating any license... this is equivalent to purchasing a copy of the license for someone else. You certainly shouldn't be able to activate the same code on your computer if they've activated it on theirs.

 

How is that any different than what we are talking about--Most current users are running a NEW license, that is subscription-based, and is completely separate from the version that we bought that was tied to the CD. If I sell or give away that CD and serial #, I am no longer using it (nor could I, since I don't have the CD anyway).

Do YOU speak for Hash in an official capacity? Or are you just pissing me off for your own self-aggrandizement?